Private Planes: Freedom, Security, and Responsibility

To clarify, I did not say GA was "responsible." I said that GA schools
provided the training.

Your tone was indicative (to me anyway) that GA was somehow responsible
for the attack

I'm not buying the McVeigh/Ryder truck analogy. I'm pretty sure that
people purchasing large quantities of nitrogen based products such as
fertilizer face some type of restrictions or scrutiny today, but I'm
not
sure.

Today, yes. I don't think that was the case in 1993(?) when the Murrah
building was wiped out. But you missed the point. What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding.

I'm fairly certain that new security requirements have been established
for foreign-born trainees.

I recall hearing something about that as well not long after 9/11. A
day late and a dollar short, as my mother used to say

by " Dec 14, 2005 at 01:24
PM

Your tone was indicative (to me anyway) that GA was somehow responsible
for the attack


snip
Today, yes. I don't think that was the case in 1993(?) when the Murrah
building was wiped out. But you missed the point. What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding.

snip
I recall hearing something about that as well not long after 9/11. A
day late and a dollar short, as my mother used to say

Sorry about the wise-ass tone.

My criticisms of GA are limited mostly to complete lack of community
control over any aspect of airport operations at many facilities. Noise,
and certain rude pilots who simply ignore noise abatement being my main
gripe...

No other industry/activity enjoys such protections from community noise
statutes. If I am wrong in this assertion, please correct me. No one
ever has, and I cannot find any facts that indicate otherwise.


Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
some restrictions on personal liberty.

Regarding noise, I think people on the ground should have some "rights."
Presently, we have none. "Rights" to free skies (ficticious, really --
this just refers to FARs which people at the EAA and AOPA would like to
see enshrined in the Constitution, but aren't) needs to be balanced with
people's right to peace and quiet, IMO. I think this is especially true
for those unfortunates who live miles away from an airport and have no way
of knowing that they will suddenly be under a flight path (or acrobatic
training box) designated by some anonymous bureaucrat at an aloof federal
bureaucracy (the FAA) who doesn't give a hoot about them.

Sadly, compromise with the flight schools/pilots is obviously not possible
in my neck of the woods. So we, being stubborn New Englanders, will fight
back using all legal, political methods at our disposal.

Those who dismiss all of the "anti-noise/GA" activists as kooks and
looneys

Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
some restrictions on personal liberty.

It's "there needs to be". Spelling aside, I do =not= agree with this at
all. It is the price of freedom. Freedom disappears long before
security appears.

My criticisms of GA are limited mostly to complete lack of community
control over any aspect of airport operations at many facilities.

If every town set its own flight rules, flying would become so
impractical as to disappear. Noise rules =are= a kind of flight rules.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" wrote in message
Regarding security, I think you ask the $99 question: "What reasonable
standard exists to protect the public without infringing too much on
the right of the law-abiding?" Trade-offs suck, but when we have
psychotic terrorists killing our citizens, using our "freedoms" to their
twisted advantage, I think everyone would agree that their needs to be
some restrictions on personal liberty.

Only nut cases like you would think such a thing.